VIPUL VASANT PATIL,INDIA vs. CPC, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING SYSTEM OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
Facts
The assessee, a resident individual, had income from salary and house property and other sources. They also earned salary income in Singapore from Dec 2017 to Mar 2018 and paid taxes there. The assessee e-filed their return, omitted to claim foreign tax credit (FTC), then filed a revised return claiming FTC of Rs. 3,33,695 along with Form No. 67. The CPC disallowed the FTC, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating Form No. 67 was not filed by the due date.
Held
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is directory, not mandatory, and that it was filed before the completion of the assessment. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal allowed the claim for foreign tax credit, subject to verification of certain facts. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the claim, and the interest liability under sections 234B and 234C was to be re-computed.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee is eligible for foreign tax credit when Form No. 67 was filed along with the revised return but after the due date for filing the original return. Also, issues related to the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C.
Sections Cited
90, 234B, 234C, 139(1), 154, 128
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:
Vipul Vasant Patil 2 ITA No. 3974/M/2023
Re.: Denial of relief u/s. 90 of the Income 1. Re.: Denial of relief u/s. 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 ['Act'1 vis-à- à-vis credit for Foreign Taxes paid vis credit for Foreign Taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695: 1.1 The Assessing Officer ['AO'] / Centralised Processing 1.1 The Assessing Officer ['AO'] / Centralised Processing 1.1 The Assessing Officer ['AO'] / Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru ['СРС'] erred in denying the relief Centre, Bengaluru ['СРС'] erred in denying the relief Centre, Bengaluru ['СРС'] erred in denying the relief claimed under section 90 of the Act vis claimed under section 90 of the Act vis-à-vis credit for vis credit for foreign taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695, which action has been foreign taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695, which action has been foreign taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695, which action has been upheld by th upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ['CIT(A)' / 'NFAC']. National Faceless Appeal Centre ['CIT(A)' / 'NFAC']. National Faceless Appeal Centre ['CIT(A)' / 'NFAC']. 1.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 1.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 1.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the AO / CPC erred in denying the relief subject, the AO / CPC erred in denying the relief subject, the AO / CPC erred in denying the relief claimed u/s. 90 for the credit of foreign taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695 u/s. 90 for the credit of foreign taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695 u/s. 90 for the credit of foreign taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695 on the ground that the Appellant has claimed the credit of on the ground that the Appellant has claimed the credit of on the ground that the Appellant has claimed the credit of foreign taxes paid only in the revised return of income and foreign taxes paid only in the revised return of income and foreign taxes paid only in the revised return of income and not in the original return of income and also not filed Form not in the original return of income and also not filed Form not in the original return of income and also not filed Form No. 67 within the due date of filing of return of income within the due date of filing of return of income within the due date of filing of return of income prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act without appreciating the prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act without appreciating the prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the same was furnished alongwith the revised fact that the same was furnished alongwith the revised fact that the same was furnished alongwith the revised return of income and hence the action of the CIT(A) return of income and hence the action of the CIT(A) return of income and hence the action of the CIT(A) upholding the Order of the AO / CPC is i upholding the Order of the AO / CPC is i upholding the Order of the AO / CPC is incorrect, erroneous and not in accordance with the law. erroneous and not in accordance with the law. 1.3 The Appellant submits that the AO / CPC be directed 1.3 The Appellant submits that the AO / CPC be directed 1.3 The Appellant submits that the AO / CPC be directed to grant the relief u/s. 90 vis to grant the relief u/s. 90 vis-a-vis the credit of foreign vis the credit of foreign taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695 and accordingly compute the taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695 and accordingly compute the taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695 and accordingly compute the total income and taxes thereo total income and taxes thereon. 2. Re.: Interest u/s. 234B of the Act has been levied in 2. Re.: Interest u/s. 234B of the Act has been levied in 2. Re.: Interest u/s. 234B of the Act has been levied in excess: 2.1 The AO / CPC has erred in levying excessive interest 2.1 The AO / CPC has erred in levying excessive interest 2.1 The AO / CPC has erred in levying excessive interest u/s. 234B of the Income u/s. 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 2.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 2.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the l circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the aw prevailing on the subject, excessive interest has been levied u/s. 234B and subject, excessive interest has been levied u/s. 234B and subject, excessive interest has been levied u/s. 234B and hence the action of the AO /CPC upheld by the CIT(A) in hence the action of the AO /CPC upheld by the CIT(A) in hence the action of the AO /CPC upheld by the CIT(A) in this regard is incorrect, erroneous and not in accordance this regard is incorrect, erroneous and not in accordance this regard is incorrect, erroneous and not in accordance with the law. with the law.
Vipul Vasant Patil 3 ITA No. 3974/M/2023
2.3 The Appellant submits that the AO / CPC be di 2.3 The Appellant submits that the AO / CPC be di 2.3 The Appellant submits that the AO / CPC be directed to delete the excess interest so levied and to re to delete the excess interest so levied and to re-compute its compute its tax liability accordingly. tax liability accordingly. 3. Re.: Interest u/s. 234C of the Act has been levied in 3. Re.: Interest u/s. 234C of the Act has been levied in 3. Re.: Interest u/s. 234C of the Act has been levied in excess 3.1 The AO / CPC has erred in levying interest of Rs. 3.1 The AO / CPC has erred in levying interest of Rs. 3.1 The AO / CPC has erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,09,672 instead of Rs. 92,819 u/s. 234C 1,09,672 instead of Rs. 92,819 u/s. 234C of the Income of the Income- tax Act, 1961. tax Act, 1961. 3.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 3.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 3.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, no further interest is leviable u/s. 234C (over and subject, no further interest is leviable u/s. 234C (over and subject, no further interest is leviable u/s. 234C (over and above the interest u/s. 234C of Rs. 92,819/ above the interest u/s. 234C of Rs. 92,819/- computed computed and paid by the Appellant at the time of filing its return of and paid by the Appellant at the time of filing its return of and paid by the Appellant at the time of filing its return of income) and hence the action of the AO / CPC upheld by income) and hence the action of the AO / CPC upheld by income) and hence the action of the AO / CPC upheld by the CIT(A) in this regard is incorrect, erroneous and not in the CIT(A) in this regard is incorrect, erroneous and not in the CIT(A) in this regard is incorrect, erroneous and not in accordance with the law. accordance with the law. 3.3 The Appellant submits that the AO / CPC be direc 3.3 The Appellant submits that the AO / CPC be direc 3.3 The Appellant submits that the AO / CPC be directed to delete the excess interest so levied and to re to delete the excess interest so levied and to re-compute its compute its tax liability accordingly. tax liability accordingly. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a resident individual having income from salary and house property resident individual having income from salary and house property resident individual having income from salary and house property and other sources. The assessee al and other sources. The assessee also earned salary income and so earned salary income and other income in Singapore for the perio other income in Singapore for the period from 01.12.2017 to d from 01.12.2017 to 31.03.2018 from Unilever ltd 31.03.2018 from Unilever ltd, on which tax was deducted in foreign , on which tax was deducted in foreign country. He e-filed his return of income for the assessment year filed his return of income for the assessment year filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 16.07.2018, er consideration on 16.07.2018, however, omitted to claim owever, omitted to claim foreign tax credit. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return foreign tax credit. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return foreign tax credit. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 28.03.2019, wherein he claimed foreign tax credit (FTC) of wherein he claimed foreign tax credit (FTC) of wherein he claimed foreign tax credit (FTC) of Rs.3,33,695/- on salary income earned in Singapore on salary income earned in Singapore , which on salary income earned in Singapore subjected to tax both subjected to tax both in Singapore and India. The assessee also ndia. The assessee also
Vipul Vasant Patil 4 ITA No. 3974/M/2023
filed Form No. 67 prescribed under Income filed Form No. 67 prescribed under Income-tax Rules, 1962 along tax Rules, 1962 along with revised return on 28.03.2019. Before us, the assessee has filed with revised return on 28.03.2019. Before us, the assessee has filed with revised return on 28.03.2019. Before us, the assessee has filed a detail of salary and other income earned in Singapore and the a detail of salary and other income earned in Singapore and the a detail of salary and other income earned in Singapore and the 2.2017 to 31.03.2018. The taxes paid for the period from 01.1 taxes paid for the period from 01.12.2017 to 31.03.2018. The relevant detail is reproduced as under: relevant detail is reproduced as under:
2.1 The revised return of income filed by the assessee was The revised return of income filed by the assessee was The revised return of income filed by the assessee was processed processed processed by by by the the the Centralized Centralized Centralized Processed Processed Processed Centre Centre Centre (CPC) (CPC) (CPC) on on on 11.06.2020. However, credit of FTC was not allowed to the assessee. 11.06.2020. However, credit of FTC was not allowed to the assessee. 11.06.2020. However, credit of FTC was not allowed to the assessee. Further, the assessee filed a rectification application before the CPC r, the assessee filed a rectification application before the CPC r, the assessee filed a rectification application before the CPC
Vipul Vasant Patil 5 ITA No. 3974/M/2023
however, in the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated however, in the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated however, in the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated 31.05.2021 the claim of FTC of Rs.3,33,695/ 31.05.2021 the claim of FTC of Rs.3,33,695/- was denied to the was denied to the assessee.
On further appeal against the rectification order, th On further appeal against the rectification order, th On further appeal against the rectification order, the Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the CIT(A) also rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the CIT(A) also rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the Form No. 67 was to be filed before the due date specified for Form No. 67 was to be filed before the due date specified for Form No. 67 was to be filed before the due date specified for furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act as provided under furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act as provided under furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act as provided under clause 9 of Rule 128 of the Income clause 9 of Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. .
We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The grievance of the assessee before us relevant material on record. The grievance of the assessee before us relevant material on record. The grievance of the assessee before us is that FTC claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income is that FTC claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income is that FTC claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income filed on 28.03.2019 along with Form No. 67 was not allowed by the filed on 28.03.2019 along with Form No. 67 was not filed on 28.03.2019 along with Form No. 67 was not CPC while processing revised return and also in the rectification CPC while processing revised return and also in the rectification CPC while processing revised return and also in the rectification order dated 31.05.2021. We find that order dated 31.05.2021. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has declined the Ld. CIT(A) has declined the claim of the FTC mainly for the reason that Form No. 67 was the claim of the FTC mainly for the reason that Form No. 67 was the claim of the FTC mainly for the reason that Form No. 67 was not filed by the assessee on or before the due not filed by the assessee on or before the due date specified for date specified for furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act as provided under as provided under clause 9 of Rule 128 of the Income clause 9 of Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 tax Rules, 1962. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumarswamay v. Duraiswamy Kumarswamay v. Madras High Court in the case of Pr. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 445 (Madras) wherein FTC Pr. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 445 (Madras) Pr. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 445 (Madras) claimed was allowed in respect of Form No. 67 filed before the claimed was allowed in respect of Form No. 67 filed before the claimed was allowed in respect of Form No. 67 filed before the completion of assessment. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble completion of assessment. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble completion of assessment. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Madrash High Court in reproduced as under: Madrash High Court in reproduced as under:
Vipul Vasant Patil 6 ITA No. 3974/M/2023
“9. In the present case, the petitioner initially worked at Kenya and In the present case, the petitioner initially worked at Kenya and In the present case, the petitioner initially worked at Kenya and subsequently, he became the resident of Indian from the assessment subsequently, he became the resident of Indian from the assessment subsequently, he became the resident of Indian from the assessment year 2018-2019 and 2019 2019 and 2019-2020. The petitioner admitted the fact that 2020. The petitioner admitted the fact that he has filed his return in India on 10.08.2019. The int he has filed his return in India on 10.08.2019. The intimation under imation under Section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2020. However, he has filed the Section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2020. However, he has filed the Section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2020. However, he has filed the return without Form return without Form-67 which is required to be filed under Rule 128 to 67 which is required to be filed under Rule 128 to claim the benefit of FTC and claim the benefit of FTC and the same came to be filed on 02.02.2021 the same came to be filed on 02.02.2021 which was well before the which was well before the completion of the assessment year. The n of the assessment year. The intimation under Section intimation under Section 143(1) was issued from the CPC only on 143(1) was issued from the CPC only on 26.03.2021. 10. According to the learned counsel appearing for the According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the respondent, the procedure under Rule 128 is mandatory and and procedure under Rule 128 is mandatory and and cannot be considered as director considered as directory in nature. The petitioner has filed his return filed his return including his Kenya income along with his Indian including his Kenya income along with his Indian Income tax and Income tax and claimed the benefits of FTC. However, the claimed the benefits of FTC. However, the petitioner would submit that petitioner would submit that it is not mandatory. The Rule cannot it is not mandatory. The Rule cannot make anything mandatory and it make anything mandatory and it can be directory in nature, that be directory in nature, that too before the Assessment, the claim to too before the Assessment, the claim to avail the benefits of FTC is avail the benefits of FTC is filed. Therefore, it would be the amounts to filed. Therefore, it would be the amounts to due compliance under due compliance under the Act. The petitioner referred to the Judgment the Act. The petitioner referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income- Tax, Maharashtra v. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Limited in Civil Maharashtra v. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Limited in Civil Maharashtra v. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Limited in Civil Appeal Nos.10782 of 2013 and 4048 of 2014 dated 24.06.2015, Nos.10782 of 2013 and 4048 of 2014 dated 24.06.2015, wherein it was held that Form 3AA is required to be filed along was held that Form 3AA is required to be filed along with the return of with the return of income to avail the bene income to avail the benefit and even if it is not filed, but the same is filed, but the same is filed during assessment proceedings but filed during assessment proceedings but before the final order of before the final order of assessment is made that would amount to assessment is made that would amount to sufficient compliance. sufficient compliance. 11.The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 11.The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Maharashtra v. G.M.Knitting Maharashtra v. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Limited in Civil Industries (P) Limited in Civil Appeal Nos.10782 of 2013 and 4048 Appeal Nos.10782 of 2013 and 4048 of 2014 dated 24.06.2015, of 2014 dated 24.06.2015, which was referred above, would be which was referred above, would be squarely applicable to the squarely applicable to the present case. In the present case, the present case. In the present case, the returns were filed without FTC, returns were filed without FTC, however the same was filed before ever the same was filed before passing of the final assessment passing of the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of order. The filing of FTC in terms of the Rule 128 is only directory in the Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the implementation of the provisions of the Act and it will always be Act and it will always be directory in nature. This is what the Hon'ble is is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had Supreme Court had held in the above cases when the returns were held in the above cases when the returns were filed without furnishing Form 3AA and the same can be filed the furnishing Form 3AA and the same can be filed the furnishing Form 3AA and the same can be filed the subsequent to the passing of assessment order. the passing of assessment order. 12. Further, in the present case, the intimation under 12. Further, in the present case, the intimation under Section Section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2021, but the FTC was filed on was issued on 26.03.2021, but the FTC was filed on 02.02.2021. 02.02.2021. Thus, the respondent is supposed to have provided the Thus, the respondent is supposed to have provided the due credit to due credit to the FTC of the petitioner. However, the FTC was the FTC of the petitioner. However, the FTC was rejected by the rejected by the respondent, which is not proper and the same i respondent, which is not proper and the same is not in accordance in accordance with law. Therefore the impugned order is liable to with law. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. be set aside. 13. Accordingly the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 is set 13. Accordingly the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 is set 13. Accordingly the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 is set aside. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court remits While setting aside the impugned order, this Court remits the matter back to the respondent to make back to the respondent to make reassessment by taking reassessment by taking into consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. The
Vipul Vasant Patil 7 ITA No. 3974/M/2023
respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extent order is set aside only to the extent of disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner and hence, the disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner and hence, the disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner and hence, the first respondent is directed to consider only on the aspect of respondent is directed to consider only on the aspect of rejection of rejection of FTC claim within a period of 8 weeks from the date of FTC claim within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy receipt of copy of this order.” 4.1 Further, we find that the Co Further, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vidya Tukaram Desai in ITA No. 3086/Mum/2023 Vidya Tukaram Desai in ITA No. 3086/Mum/2023 Vidya Tukaram Desai in ITA No. 3086/Mum/2023 for assessment year 2020 assessment year 2020-21 following the finding of coordinate bench following the finding of coordinate bench in the case of Sonkashi Sinha reported in (2022) 14 Sonkashi Sinha reported in (2022) 14 Sonkashi Sinha reported in (2022) 142 taxmann.com 414 ( Mumbai taxmann.com 414 ( Mumbai-Trib), has allowed the claim of has allowed the claim of foreign tax credit where Form No. 67 is filed before the completion foreign tax credit where Form No. 67 is filed before the completion foreign tax credit where Form No. 67 is filed before the completion of the assessment for the relevant assessment year. The relevant of the assessment for the relevant assessment year. The relevant of the assessment for the relevant assessment year. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:
“9. In the aforesaid case, it was held by the Tribunal that the Appellant said case, it was held by the Tribunal that the Appellant said case, it was held by the Tribunal that the Appellant would be eligible to foreign tax credit where Form No. 67 is filed before would be eligible to foreign tax credit where Form No. 67 is filed before would be eligible to foreign tax credit where Form No. 67 is filed before the completion of assessment for the relevant assessment year. During the completion of assessment for the relevant assessment year. During the completion of assessment for the relevant assessment year. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representati the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant ve for the Appellant also placed on record the judgment in the case of Duraiswamy also placed on record the judgment in the case of Duraiswamy also placed on record the judgment in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Kumaraswamy Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8: (W.M.P. Nos. 8: (W.M.P. Nos. 5925 and 5927 of 2022, dated 06/10/2023)/ [2023] 156 taxmann.com 5925 and 5927 of 2022, dated 06/10/2023)/ [2023] 156 taxmann.com 5925 and 5927 of 2022, dated 06/10/2023)/ [2023] 156 taxmann.com 445 (Madras) wherein identical view has 445 (Madras) wherein identical view has been taken by the Hon'ble been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Madras High Court. 10. In the present case also Form No. 67 has been filed by the Appellant In the present case also Form No. 67 has been filed by the Appellant In the present case also Form No. 67 has been filed by the Appellant before processing the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. before processing the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. before processing the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the above judicial precedents, w Therefore, respectfully following the above judicial precedents, w Therefore, respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we remand the issue raised in present appeal relating to claim of foreign tax remand the issue raised in present appeal relating to claim of foreign tax remand the issue raised in present appeal relating to claim of foreign tax credit back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to grant credit back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to grant credit back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to grant foreign tax credit to the Appellant as per the aforesaid decision after foreign tax credit to the Appellant as per the aforesaid decision after foreign tax credit to the Appellant as per the aforesaid decision after verification. Ground No. 1 raised verification. Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed for by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes.” 4.2 In view of the above precedents on the issue in dispute In view of the above precedents on the issue in dispute In view of the above precedents on the issue in dispute, we are of the considered opinion that assessee is eligible for claim of the of the considered opinion that assessee is eligible for claim of the of the considered opinion that assessee is eligible for claim of the foreign tax credit as Form NO. 67 has been filed by the assessee foreign tax credit as Form NO. 67 has been filed by the assessee foreign tax credit as Form NO. 67 has been filed by the assessee
Vipul Vasant Patil 8 ITA No. 3974/M/2023
along with revised return of income on 28.03.2019 which is much along with revised return of income on 28.03.2019 which is much along with revised return of income on 28.03.2019 which is much before the processing of the return of income by CPC on before the processing of the return of income before the processing of the return of income 11.06.2020. However, we find that in the case of the assessee before 11.06.2020. However, we find that in the case of the assessee before 11.06.2020. However, we find that in the case of the assessee before need to be ascertained: allowing foreign tax credit following allowing foreign tax credit following facts need to be ascertained
(i) The assessee has earned salary income of 54411 Singapore (i) The assessee has earned salary income of 54411 Singapore (i) The assessee has earned salary income of 54411 Singapore Dollar in calendar year 2017 and income of 192856 Dollar in calendar year 2017 and income of 192856 Dollar in calendar year 2017 and income of 192856 Singapore dollar in calendar year 2018 before 31.03.2018 which dollar in calendar year 2018 before 31.03.2018 which dollar in calendar year 2018 before 31.03.2018 which include salary income of 53286 Singapore dollar. The assessee has salary income of 53286 Singapore dollar. The assessee has salary income of 53286 Singapore dollar. The assessee has claimed that tax ax equivalent to Indian Rupees equivalent to Indian Rupees 73,403/- has been deducted in calendar year 2017 whereas tax of been deducted in calendar year 2017 whereas tax of been deducted in calendar year 2017 whereas tax of Rs.260,291/- has been deducted corresponding to the has been deducted corresponding to the has been deducted corresponding to the calendar year 2018 by the Singapore calendar year 2018 by the Singapore tax authorities. In view of authorities. In view of the above facts it is required to ascertain w the above facts it is required to ascertain whether the income hether the income earned in Singapore has been added by the assessee in the earned in Singapore has been added by the assessee in the earned in Singapore has been added by the assessee in the return of income filed for the year under consideration in return of income filed for the year under consideration in return of income filed for the year under consideration in India.
(ii) It needs to be verified whether the tax credit claimed to be verified whether the tax credit claimed to be verified whether the tax credit claimed pertained only to Singapore income included in the ret to Singapore income included in the ret to Singapore income included in the return of income filed in India for the year under consideration. income filed in India for the year under consideration. income filed in India for the year under consideration.
(iii) It is also need (iii) It is also needs verification that the assessee has not the assessee has not claimed any refund for such taxes paid claimed any refund for such taxes paid/withheld /withheld before the Singapore authorities. Singapore authorities.
Vipul Vasant Patil 9 ITA No. 3974/M/2023
4.3 In view of the above, we direct the Assessin In view of the above, we direct the Assessin In view of the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider the claim of the assessee subject to the verification of the consider the claim of the assessee subject to the verification of the consider the claim of the assessee subject to the verification of the facts as mentioned above. The matter is accordingly restored to the facts as mentioned above. The matter is accordingly restored to the facts as mentioned above. The matter is accordingly restored to the Assessing Officer for considering the claim of the assessee of file of Assessing Officer for considering the claim of the assessee of Assessing Officer for considering the claim of the assessee of the foreign tax credit as directed the foreign tax credit as directed above.
4.4 The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. The ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. The ground No. 2 and 3 are consequential, therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to compute the interest liability u/s 234B and 234C in accordance compute the interest liability u/s 234B and 234C in accor compute the interest liability u/s 234B and 234C in accor with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 25/04/2024. /04/2024. Sd/- - Sd/ Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/04/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai
